From [ Marc Abrams (2003.05.01.1005) ]
After some additional thought, reflection and review of my posts I would
like to try and be a bit more concise in trying to convey my ideas
In my last post it was not my intention to "rip" apart Bruce's passage. I
was trying to show that you could literally do that with _any_
communication. Meaning that 95% of the communications we have with others
is largely "meaningless". That is, if it doesn't cause conflict or error,
each of us walks away with our own perception of things, which is not going
to be the same anyone else's. Does it matter? Usually not, and when it
does, it matters to varying degrees.
Is a perception different then an imagination? That is a question that has
been hotly debated in Philosophy for the last 300+ years. It continues to
this day.
We have a *Philosophy of Science*, but do we have a *Science of
Philosophy*?. Not yet, But I believe Bill has potentially begun that
very idea with his HPCT model.
Mathematics is a language of *relationships* There is no finer language for
that purpose. None come close for clarity. Bills mathematical model of
human behavior (HPCT )
exquisitely ( IMO ) defines the relationship between and among the various
primitives ( functions ) in the model. We can talk "philosophically" about
those relationships. But when we do, we often run into "interpretation"
problems and, perceptual definition of word and concept problems. We have
no such problems when we stick to the mathematics _and_ the science of the
model.
Unfortunately this does not hold true for the primitives. The primitives
are the axioms, the givens of the model. Functions simply say that "a
process exists that takes x input and outputs y, by some combination of
transformations and computations". This begs the question. What is x and
what is y? Bill simply says, accurately, truthfully, and _scientifically_
that they are "signals". The question then becomes, How do we discuss this
"philosophically"? The answer is we don't, or at least not very well.
But I believe there is some light at the end of the tunnel with this
dilemma ( to me it's a dilemma :-)) and Bill has provided it.
The hierarchy and memory. Together, I believe, they provide an answer to
the ages old philosophical problem of "What is a perception?" I believe
Bill might have the beginnings of a *science of Philosophy*. The hierarchy
and memory contain the primitives ( actually _are_ the primitives ) of this
concept called perception. I am interested in defining perception vis a vie
the HPCT control model.
Bruce N. Your posts are terrific. You give much food for thought. Keep 'em
coming
Marc